Victim Notification Scheme (VNS): independent review

Section 29: Registration

As outlined earlier in this review, victims are identified by COPFS, which sends out an information pack inviting a victim to register with one or both parts of the VNS. The enclosed forms then need to be sent back to a different organisation, the SPS. Information about the number of forms sent out was not available for the Review, but we have replies to Parliamentary Questions from 2021 and 2023 about how many forms were sent out.^[8] Even with this information, it is difficult to understand why there seems to be a low take-up of the scheme.

We have been told some victims do not recall having been informed of the scheme. The forms are sent shortly after sentencing, which is generally agreed to be a time of extreme emotional turmoil for the victim. The scheme is paper-based and postal for the most part. We have not found any obvious consistency in how agencies make contact; some will telephone and email whilst others will not. We have identified concerns around GDPR as a reason for hesitance around some communications. The paperwork itself and the statutory options are confusing and the victims, whilst signposted to support organisations, may need to navigate all this themselves.

In terms of lost contact, SPS does record how many forms have been returned to them undelivered. As at March 2022, just over 3% of letters were returned (53). By comparison, in March 2021, 117, by March 2020, 113 and by March 2019, 98.

We have identified a number of additional complexities with registration such as an issue where an offender transferring to a hospital under a Hospital Direction (HD) will not come within the ambit of the VNS, unless the victim is also registered with the mainstream VNS; that for victims to receive full notification around mental health, a specific request is needed; and there are some limitations to participation in the parole process, unless a victim has registered their preferences in detail at the outset. Again, here our recommendation of automatic referral and an early conversation with a contact team about the scheme should resolve this issue.

We took evidence that some victims may not wish to engage with the process or 'move on' or they may change their position as time goes by. We only have anecdotal information that some victims contact SPS to deregister. More telling was evidence from victims that their traumatic experience never really goes away.

There are a number of choices here:

(a) as now in Scotland, a system to which victims 'opt in'

(b) one which automatically includes all victims of qualifying offenders ('opt out')

(c) a hybrid system, depending on the nature of the offence, with automatic referral and enrolment for victims of violent or sexual crime, the remainder to have a choice of opting in as now

(d) automatic referral to a suitably qualified victim information team for all eligible victims, to facilitate informed choice to 'opt in' (or not).

(a) 'Opt in'

The problems with the current opt-in system have been outlined above. We do not recommend the status quo.

(b) 'Opt-out'

The majority of respondents suggested the system should be an 'opt-out' scheme, easy to opt out at a later stage if desired. However, if all victims were automatically included in an 'opt-out' scheme there is some potential to overburden the system with volume. In addition, we consider that automatic enrolment would not in itself address the issues around navigating a complex system or make the experience more trauma-informed.

(c) A hybrid system

We have seen a model in Catalonia whereby victims of domestic abuse and gender violence are automatically enrolled, if made the subject of a Court Protection Order. Even in these circumstances, the victim will be asked later to sign a form to indicate they wish to receive information. Concerns were expressed about the limitations of the 'opt-in' arrangements for those not subject to a Court Protection Order.

(d) Automatic referral

The automatic referral schemes we have seen, such as in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, seem to us to provide a more comprehensive and inclusive service without differentiation. Moreover, the schemes feature personal contact with victims to explain the scheme and provide advice about information and other entitlements, helping them to make an informed choice about registering. This is our preferred option, as it provides for clear consent and informed choice – see Recommendation 17 below.

We considered the current model whereby the Scheme has Parts 1 and 2, with different provisions for each part, as well an additional process for sentences under 18 months, to be complex considerations for a victim to understand and no other country system we looked at makes these kinds of distinctions. From a victim's point of view, the key issue is the personal impact on themselves rather than the legal category an event falls into. We believe the system should be based on choice and consent on registration, and this would encompass choices around information and participation in the parole process. While there may be administrative reasons for distinguishing information entitlements and participation in the parole process, it could be presented in a more accessible and cohesive way.

If there were an expert single point of contact available to explain and inform, much confusion and misunderstanding on the victim's part could be avoided. Early personal contact by a qualified person to explain sentencing, offender management, victim safety planning and entitlement to information would mean it was not left to the victim to work out how the scheme operates and what they should do. Well informed decision-making by a victim might also reduce the administrative burden overall, reducing enquiries, incorrect applications, missed opportunities and stress on the victim.

The most recent Scottish crime statistics can provide some insight into potential volumes, but these figures have been distorted by the Covid pandemic, which sharply reduced court activity.

In order to estimate the likely size of any caseload under an automatic referral system, we have looked at crime figures for Scotland.

The most recent figures show the total people convicted in Scotland in 2020-2021 numbered 42,532, of which 17% received custodial sentences (Pre-pandemic 2019-2020 the total was 75,670 - 15%). Of the total convictions, 1,504 were for a main charge of non-sexual violence (including 383 under the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018) and 817 for sexual crime. It might be safe to assume that a notional future non Covid-affected estimate might be double the 2020-2021 figures. This might lead us to estimating a possible total of violence, domestic and sexual abuse convictions to be at around 2,700 cases, which might be encompassed if all were referred automatically to a victim liaison/information team.

We looked at comparative VNS caseloads for our neighbours. We were informed England & Wales have around 42,000 live registered cases, Northern Ireland 500 and the Republic of Ireland 449 live cases.

At any given time, a workload would be a mix of active and passive cases. Some cases may not require action for a considerable period of time. Whilst some models we examined appeared to be labouring under pressure of the number of cases, where we found the system was working effectively in terms of caseload, such as in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, an approximate caseload per liaison team member stood at around 180-200.

Recommendation 17. Automatic referral. Section 29

Having carefully considered the arguments, we have concluded that a solution to many of the currently perceived shortfalls of the process could best be addressed by the adoption of a system of automatic referral of all eligible victims. All victims meeting the current criteria for registration with the VNS should be systematically identified and their details passed to a suitably qualified team of contact officers within a prescribed time limit. Having received these details, the team would make personal contact with the victim (again within a prescribed time limit to ensure timely engagement) to explain the process, invite registration or, if the victim chooses not to do so, set a time to make further contact with the victim later to check the victim’s wishes or needs had not altered. This allows for the personal communication with the victim, opportunities to answer questions or explain, to offer choice to the victim relating to their needs and wishes and, above all, flexibility.